I was looking at 360 Screens...

Thunderscope

Thunderscope

CAGiversary!
I gotta say, I planned on getting a 360 at launch, now with the price announcment(s) Im rethinking that. But besides that I cant help to notice the lack of graphical difference between the current xbox and the 360. I understand these are 1st gen launch games and all but the graphics look very simular to this generations offerings. I know eventually the graphics will surpass the current xbox by far, but how is Microsoft supposed to get the mainstream gamer when they see that the Next Gen X360 looks almost just like their current Xbox system?
 
[quote name='Thunderscope']I gotta say, I planned on getting a 360 at launch, now with the price announcment(s) Im rethinking that. But besides that I cant help to notice the lack of graphical difference between the current xbox and the 360. I understand these are 1st gen launch games and all but the graphics look very simular to this generations offerings. I know eventually the graphics will surpass the current xbox by far, but how is Microsoft supposed to get the mainstream gamer when they see that the Next Gen X360 looks almost just like their current Xbox system?[/QUOTE]

I guess it depends on the game. Look at some Gears of War screenshots.
 
To be fair Scorch, your Xbox screenshot is at native resolution but the 360 screenshot is at 1600 x 1200 (which the 360 can't output). There are some great looking hi-res Far Cry Instincts screenshots too. But I do agree that 360 games look much better in general.
 
Those screenshots are of 2 completely different type of games, if somewould could get screens of Quake 4 and Doom 3 side by side that would be great
 
[quote name='Thunderscope']Those screenshots are of 2 completely different type of games, if somewould could get screens of Quake 4 and Doom 3 side by side that would be great[/QUOTE]

You have to remember Doom 3 is probably the pinnacle of Xbox graphics. Quake 4 is just a launch title. Also, before someone posts screenshots, I can already tell you that Doom 3 runs at 640x480 (or possibly 853x480) and Quake 4 runs at up to 1920x1080 or 1280x720 with full screen anti-aliasing.
 
Apart from a few lighting effects and more detailed textures, that second screenshot looks a lot like something from Metroid Prime. Granted, the graphics will gradually improve, but it's not nearly as noticeable as even the PS1 -> Dreamcast transition.

At 640x480, I could easily pass that off to a lot of people as an Xbox screenshot. You have to study it a bit to notice any major differences from Halo 2.
 
[quote name='rohlfinator']Apart from a few lighting effects and more detailed textures, that second screenshot looks a lot like something from Metroid Prime. Granted, the graphics will gradually improve, but it's not nearly as noticeable as even the PS1 -> Dreamcast transition.
[/quote]

To be blunt, that's because the PS1 was a piece of shit when it came to graphics. The N64 -> Dreamcast transition was much smaller.

At 640x480, I could easily pass that off to a lot of people as an Xbox screenshot. You have to study it a bit to notice any major differences from Halo 2.
Click to expand...

I agree, that screenshot isn't what I'd call the best example of the 360's capabilities.
 
stills mean nothing, as systems become more defined, animations and effects are going to be the deciding factor. I'm 100% positive that if I showed you vids between an xbox game and an 360 game you would easily tell the difference. Go watch some vids, and then tell me they look similuar.
 
Lets compare 1st generation XBOX to 1st generation xbox 360:

morrowind8.jpg


e3-2005-elder-scrolls-oblivion-images-20050516054628427.jpg



halotgs3.jpg


tom-clancys-ghost-recon-3-20050512034510031.jpg



Best looking XBOX game: (3rd generation)

tom-clancys-splinter-cell-chaos-theory-20050302044537734.jpg





Best looking XBOX 360 game: (1st generation)

gears-of-war-20050517002655380.jpg
 
[quote name='aaa']Lets compare 1st generation XBOX to 1st generation xbox 360:

morrowind8.jpg


e3-2005-elder-scrolls-oblivion-images-20050516054628427.jpg


Wow, a low-res screen vs. a much higher resolution screen of a game that was never praised for its graphics anyway. Not to mention that it's not even an OMG difference.


halotgs3.jpg


tom-clancys-ghost-recon-3-20050512034510031.jpg


Once again, this isn't even that big of a difference. Is this really $400 and 5 years better? I think not.

Best looking XBOX game: (3rd generation)

tom-clancys-splinter-cell-chaos-theory-20050302044537734.jpg





Best looking XBOX 360 game: (1st generation)

gears-of-war-20050517002655380.jpg
[/QUOTE]

LMAO, that's not even an in-game screen shot.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Once again, this isn't even that big of a difference. Is this really $400 and 5 years better? I think not.[/QUOTE]

You thought wrong.
 
If you don't notice a difference, then don't get it...I will be getting one, and I feel confident I will be able to justify the purchase in under a year from the release of the system. Thats my opinion, I am not saying that current releases aren't looking and playing great, but I can play those games as well.
 
if you honestly cant tell the difference then please have your eyes examined......the graphics are tremendously more detailed and as was said before.....GEARS OF WAR LOOKS GREAT
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']LMAO, that's not even an in-game screen shot.[/QUOTE]

It is ingame. Its the Unreal 3 engine. Gears of War is based on it. The screenshot itself may not be ingame but thats how the games will look because the screenshot is rendered withthe ingame engine.

And Riddick and Doom 3 are really the same graphic wise as they both use the same engine as well.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']The differences between Morrowind and Oblivion are huge, anyone can see that.[/QUOTE]
Definitely. But the difference between Halo and... that other FPS are not nearly as noticeable. Lighting and the facial models are about the only noticeable difference.
[quote name='lowgear26']if you honestly cant tell the difference then please have your eyes examined......the graphics are tremendously more detailed and as was said before.....GEARS OF WAR LOOKS GREAT[/quote]
There's no question as to whether or not they look better, it's whether this level of graphical updates is worth $400. Because frankly, that looks like the biggest thing the Xbox 360 is offering right now. All that other GUI stuff could be done with an overhaul to Live and a firmware update.

IMO, I wouldn't pay more than $200 for that minor of a graphics upgrade. I would pay more for other hardware-related improvements, like better AI or 64-player multiplayer, so hopefully the 360 offers plenty of that, rather than focusing mainly on graphics (which kinda seems to be what's happening right now). Sure, Gears of War looks good, but does it play any differently than any other generic FPS we already have?
 
Who cares if first gen 360 games look better than first gen Xbox games? I have current gen Xbox games that look almost on par with the 360 games I see now. When the time comes that 360 games look ALOT better than the current Xbox games do (and they probably will with time, but right now, they don't), then I'll bite. But right now they only look marginally better, and certainly not $400 worth of better.
 
Doom 3 (XB)


Quake 4 (360)


Better? Yes, but not very. Does this scream "It is necessary for me to 'upgrade' to the 360!" to you? Because it doesn't to me.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Doom 3 (XB)


Quake 4 (360)


Better? Yes, but not very. Does this scream "It is necessary for me to 'upgrade' to the 360!" to you? Because it doesn't to me.[/QUOTE]

Not really a fair comparison since Quake 4 is one of the worse looking xbox 360 games, and DOOM 3 is a 3rd gen xbox game that is one of the xbox games. Just compare Oblivion to Morrowind, and compare Halo to Ghost Recon 3. There is no comparison.
 
I am impressed with the Oblivion shots and even if I don't get a 360 (still on the bench about it but I probably will) then I have all intention of getting it for pc. Hell, the game type isn't even my type of game but I will buy it on sheer graphics alone.
 
[quote name='dtarasev']It is ingame. Its the Unreal 3 engine. Gears of War is based on it. The screenshot itself may not be ingame but thats how the games will look because the screenshot is rendered withthe ingame engine.[/quote]
You might want to rethink this. A scripted segment using the game engine can look a lot better than an in-game screen shot. None of the video I've seen of GoW looks that good. Good? Yes, but not that good.

And Riddick and Doom 3 are really the same graphic wise as they both use the same engine as well.
Click to expand...
Riddick uses the Doom3 engine? Are you sure? I am fairly certain it uses its own engine.

[quote name='aaa']Just compare Oblivion to Morrowind, and compare Halo to Ghost Recon 3. There is no comparison.[/quote]
That's first gen XBOX vs. first gen XBOX 360, and that's not the issue people are making. First gen XBOX 360 games should look significantly better than 3rd gen XBOX games, not just first gen titles. If they didn't look better than first gen titles everyone would be laughing. Some do look slightly better, but I keep hearing people say, "Wait a year, then you'll see!" Yeah, I will. I am waiting a year to buy an XBOX 360 when I see some really impressive games.
 
[quote name='elwood731']
Riddick uses the Doom3 engine? Are you sure? I am fairly certain it uses its own engine.
[/QUOTE]


Riddick uses the Starbreeze Engine.
 
I think the real trick is to realize that systems never use their full capacity till near the end of their life spans and that often the first wave of games out for a system contain quite a few that really aren't any better than games from the last gen. systems.
 
I said it once I'll say it again, stills do nothing, watch riddick in motion, then peep a vid of GOW. It'll be like watching '70 techinicolor tv and then switching to HDTV. I can't guerentee that your jaw will drop or that you'll piss your pants, but you will be rocked.
 
Well isn't PD 0 going to have 50 or more players in a match...isn't battlefront that big one now, I know Battfield Modern Combat promises 50 players. Also the amount of characters onscreen in kameo, and the advanced AI...with that much more ram, how good could they not become better games....as for gears of war delivering something new, what are you guys looking for? Its a shooter, you run, you shoot...how much more inovative can you get...the halo control setup, works farily well, so the control features are done
 
If you have doubts, don't buy a box until the difference stands out for you. IT's going to be hard to see the true difference until you've had a chance to play the games for real and see not only the level of detail but also the accompanying depth and other elements that coolectively would be well beyond an orginal Xbox's abilities.

There is no blame for requiring the product to win you over before buying.
 
[quote name='Thunderscope'] A Proud owner of a PS2 and GC[/QUOTE]
You all are fucking morons for even listening to this troll. Look at his sig. He is obiviously flamebaiting and you all bit down on that hook.
 
[quote name='epobirs']If you have doubts, don't buy a box until the difference stands out for you. IT's going to be hard to see the true difference until you've had a chance to play the games for real and see not only the level of detail but also the accompanying depth and other elements that coolectively would be well beyond an orginal Xbox's abilities.

There is no blame for requiring the product to win you over before buying.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Good ole epobirs, proof that someone, somewhere, gets it.

To reiterate what's been said 3 times already: don't judge by looking at stills, that's playing dumb. Go play some Riddick or some doom3, then go watch some 360 vids at ign or some other site, aand then voice your opinion. Untill then please, stfu.
 
[quote name='rohlfinator']
IMO, I wouldn't pay more than $200 for that minor of a graphics upgrade. I would pay more for other hardware-related improvements, like better AI or 64-player multiplayer, so hopefully the 360 offers plenty of that, rather than focusing mainly on graphics (which kinda seems to be what's happening right now). Sure, Gears of War looks good, but does it play any differently than any other generic FPS we already have?[/QUOTE]

I agree that I hope AI and more players in multiplayer is what we get and I think to an extent we will get that. I was reading comments from John Carmack from QuakeCon or somewhere and he was saying how he thinks it'll be hard to get the most out of these new processors and that he'd rather have a certain frames per second instead of better physics. Which I thought was kinda annoying, but it does make that point.

I think we're pretty much tapped out as far as graphics go, but there can be a lot of other advancements and that is what is important to me. I'd rather have 50 player Perfect Dark than I would 16 players and the game be prettier. Or I'd rather have better AI in Ghost Recon 3 instead of just a visual upgrade. And as far as the developers that aren't lazy, I think we will see that to some extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top